Billboard shambles

51 comments on “Billboard shambles ”

• Comments are now closed

1. the sprouot 1

   20 December 2007 at 10:33 am

   god he’s a tragic freak, i mean you couldn’t ask for a ‘better’ opponent really. his only hope is the sympathy vote.
2. Monty 2

   20 December 2007 at 10:35 am

   The way I saw it the PM was cackling in her usual horrid way – She is mighty pissed that the EFB is simply not going away and will be an election issue (which will destroy her desperate Government. ).

   Clark does not have humour – she has had so much media training that these little cackles she puts in all the time (especially when under stress) are a fake as the photo on the tax-payer funded election pledge card.

   She fools only the leftie dimwits who would praise the dog turd stuck under her shoe.
3. turd party 3

   20 December 2007 at 10:42 am

   That is no way to refer to John Key.
4. Robinsod 4

   20 December 2007 at 10:45 am

   Hey Monty: Boo. Hoo.
5. Insolent Prick 5

   20 December 2007 at 10:45 am

   3 billboards costing $15k get coverage in all the newspapers, both television networks, on every radio station, comments from the PM, and post after post from the Left decrying it.

   I’d say that’s an excellent reaction. Given how obsessed the socialists have come with just three billboards, it’s been fifteen grand very well spent.

   Considering Labour spent $800,000 of taxpayers money illegally on a pledge card that most people threw in the bin, and the only notable thing about it was the illegal use of taxpayers’ money and the fraudulent refusal to include the spending in Labour’s campaign expense return, it’s very rich for the Standard to claim that the Free Speech Coalition campaign is ineffectual.
6. Tane 6

   20 December 2007 at 10:45 am

   Yet another ramshackle PR fiasco from David Farrar.

   First Mark Blumsky’s ill-fated campaign. Then the debacle that was the Wellington EFB march. And now this.

   National Party people – in all honesty, you need to drop this guy for your own good. Everything he touches turns to shit.
7. Tane 7

   20 December 2007 at 10:49 am

   it’s very rich for the Standard to claim that the Free Speech Coalition campaign is ineffectual.

   It’s not ineffectual, it’s a PR disaster. These will not go down well with the average voter.

   As Pascal’s Bookie said last night, these clowns have confused the streets of our fine land for a Kiwiblog comments section, and they’re about to find out how marginal their views really are.
8. Monty 8

   20 December 2007 at 10:49 am

   Maybe the left (and Clark) is simply pissd because the year has ended 15 to 19 points behind in the polls, and then this getting coverage for 2-3 minutes on the news is just not going to help the recovery.

   I live next to a school in a central wellington location – maybe I should use a wall for political advertising to assist the cause. (and hopefully break the Electoral Finance Act at the same time.
9. IrishBill 9

   20 December 2007 at 10:53 am

   IP, I know you’re a punter so I’ll let you in on an old PR trick. You judge 90% of your TV coverage by watching it with the sound down. And watching this I see a some nasty attack billboards, a smiling Helen Clark, a squinty (and very tory-boy looking) DPF and some stock footage of Brash and Kerr. That adds up to a subtext of “PM laughs off right wing big-money backed attack campaign” I’d say this is an own goal from our man David.

   I also notice DPF hasn’t adjusted his $7k costing on Kiwiblog, nor has he explained to anyone why he can’t get his figures straight.
10. Monty 10

    20 December 2007 at 10:59 am

    I suppose you think David’s Campaign against the corruption of our democracy (EFB) has been so ineffective that National are now out to only a 19% point lead in the polls. David is such a klutz that he a regurarly on TV and radio commenting on the political happenings.

    I agree with Prick (as I usually do) that for $15,000 the CFS have 3 billboards up, and three minutes free advertising on both TV channels and in the newspapers this mrning. I would think it was a stroke of brilliance to put the billboard up on property knowing it will need to be brought down (with TV cameras rolling) – keeps the EFA in the forefront and raises awareness.
11. Insolent Prick 11

    20 December 2007 at 11:00 am

    Tane,

    The more cranky you pinkos get about the campaign, the more humourless and out of touch you come off. For an apologist for a party that introduced the worst piece of legislation in New Zealand’s modern history, that has led to every credible political commentator saying that Labour’s history, and the consequent slide in the polls to a 19-point margin behind National, you’ve got a lot of gall to try and interpret the public’s view on the billboards.

    Labour was wrong on the anti-smacking legislation. It was wrong to withhold tax cuts for New Zealanders. It was wrong to implement such a flawed bill as the EFB, to suit its own interests at the expense of everybody else. It was wrong to allow the filth and stench of Phillip Field, Benson-Pope, and now Trevor Mallard to linger so long.

    Really, Tane, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture to anybody on the public’s mood. New Zealand voters are sick and tired of this interfering, overtaxing, tired government. Voters, unlike the Labour Party, have still retained their sense of humour. When you get your knickers in so much of a twist over three billboards, you’re showing again how much you are out of touch.
12. TomS 12

    20 December 2007 at 11:05 am

    The problem for the likes of unhealthy internet dwellers like David Farrar (and also I suspect the editorial team at the Herald) is that if you read enough online talkback then at some point you inevitably will make the mistake of thinking it represents any sort of widely held opinion. This billboard campaign is a classic example of that. My personal view is that you simply can’t take most kiwibloggers or people who make comments on the Herald “your view” site seriously, and internet blog sites in general are heavily detached from the reality of “first life”. As I’ve become more involved in “first life” political activity my view that the internet is largely irrelevant to the views of most people has strengthened to the point where I think that sites like Farrar’s actually harm the democratic process by giving an audience to the frankly unhinged whose only outlet previously was late night talkback radio. So these days I largely confine my intellectual energy to the odd post and to real life action and discussion – and I treat sites like Kiwiblog with the seriousness it deserves.
13. Insolent Prick 13

    20 December 2007 at 11:10 am

    TomS:

    Your “first life” political reality has seen Labour plummet to a 19 point deficit in the polls.

    Perhaps you should start associating with a wider range of people. Many of them you might hear on talkback. Because they seem to represent the majority of voters, by a whopping NINETEEN PERCENT margin right now.
14. The PC Avenger 14

    20 December 2007 at 11:20 am

    IP, I find it interesting that you conflate support of National with making sexist, racist and homophobic comments on talkback or kiwiblog.
15. Lampie 15

    20 December 2007 at 11:22 am

    simply pissd because the year has ended 15 to 19 points behind in the polls

    13 to 19 points
16. IrishBill 16

    20 December 2007 at 11:23 am

    IP, It’s not Tane or the Labour party getting wound up about these billboards. Check the video: Helen looks relaxed and unconcerned DPF looks defensive. I would suggest if he is going to continue to front the media he learns not to provide grabs such as “of course we’re not saying”.
17. insider 17

    20 December 2007 at 11:27 am

    Ministry for Environment CEO resigns in face of SSC report coming out on minsterial interference in employment issues

    I think that is more shambolic.
18. realist 18

    20 December 2007 at 11:30 am

    I/P is in touch with the real world.

    The Prick’s famous predictions on Kiwiblog last year: that Don Brash would become PM, and “I’m picking a March election”. That’s March, 2007. Great picks, Prick.
19. Insolent Prick 19

    20 December 2007 at 11:33 am

    That’s your perception, Tane. When I first saw the clip on TV, I thought DPF looked very excited, and not defensive in the slightest.

    I agree the PM looks relaxed. She couldn’t quite help herself from making a sneering, snide comment about it. Good on her for taking the billboards in good humour.

    Pity the Standard could only manage a preposterous, out-of-all-proportion feigned outrage.
20. IrishBill 20

    20 December 2007 at 11:59 am

    IP, you seem to need to brush up your reading comprehension. My name is Bill, not Tane. But if it makes you feel better to think that everyone who disagrees with you is just one person in disguise that’s your prerogative.
21. Phil 21

    20 December 2007 at 12:33 pm

    Hey TomS,

    I took your post and use the find/replace function to switch all the references to Kiwiblog and DPF with TheStandard.

    Guess what – it’s just as clear, concise, and true.

    DISCLAIMER;
    I actually prefer thestandard to kiwiblog. I like having my views challenged, even if sometime those challenges are clumsy and unwieldy rantings
22. Matthew Pilott 22

    20 December 2007 at 12:36 pm

    IP where’s this outrage? You’re in full flight today, making things up left, fight and centre.

    “New Zealand voters are sick and tired of this interfering, overtaxing, tired government. Voters, unlike the Labour Party, have still retained their sense of humour. When you get your knickers in so much of a twist over three billboards, you’re showing again how much you are out of touch.”

    I just saw these guys pointing out that DPF can’t get his figures straight, and that he’s happy to associate some leaders with dictators but gets upset when it happens to him.

    You keep chucking in extravagant hyperbole if it make you think what you’re writing looks better, I suppose it might be useful for your self-esteem or something.

    P.s who appointed you spokesperson for “New Zealand Voters”?
23. Santi 23

    20 December 2007 at 12:57 pm

    “Yet another ramshackle PR fiasco from David Farrar.”

    Tane, if that’s your idea of fiasco I’d love to see what you consider success.

    For the money DPF and his backers invested they did receive a phenomenal amount of publicity and national exposure (radio and TV).
24. Insolent Prick 24

    20 December 2007 at 1:00 pm

    Matthew, you may have missed this post over at kiwiblog at http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/some_billboards_to_enjoy.html#comments

    Tane jumps on, just seconds after it’s posted, screaming:

    # Tane Says:
    December 19th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    Absolute fucking filth. You should be ashamed of yourself David.

    Then Tane jumps on, shrieking again:

    # Tane Says:
    December 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pm

    I didn’t find it humorous at all. I think you people have gone way too far in this and you’re playing a very dangerous game.

    You’re cheapening the suffering of people who live under a dictatorship and trying to stoke division and hatred in our society. It’s sick politics and it does your cause a huge discredit. This will come back to bite the National Party.

    Finally, she jumps on, saying:

    # Tane Says:
    December 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    For any journalists reading this thread:

    The Free Speech Coalition is little more than a National Party front group.

    David Farrar is a high profile National Party activist who has been employed out of National Party HQ in Wellington while working on this campaign.

    He has previously worked for National in Parliament for more than a decade, including for Bill English when he was leader of the National Party.

    The billboards were in part funded by Don Brash and other high profile members of the National Party.
    ****

    That, Matthew, is feigned outrage from a humourless, hollow pinko who is cranky that National is nineteen points ahead in the polls.
25. Tane 25

    20 December 2007 at 1:12 pm

    What I said was entirely true Prick. It is absolute fucking filth. Comparing our leaders and our petty domestic squabbles with the suffering of people who live under brutal dictatorships is just sick.

    I’m actually not worried about the impact the billboards will have on the govt – I think they’re pathetic. But I do think they’re well beyond reasonable levels of political debate.

    I’m also aware that journalists read comments threads. That’s why I put the disclaimer in. And guess what? One News’ coverage mentioned DPF’s National Party links and Don Brash’s involvement in funding the billboards. It may be a coincidence, but then maybe it’s not. Either way, it certainly can’t have hurt.

    It’s also interesting to see you continuing to refer to me as a female even though you know I’m male. As I’ve said before, the only reason you can be doing this is because you think calling someone a woman is a term of abuse. That’s called sexism Prick, and it does your credibility no favours.
26. Robinsod 26

    20 December 2007 at 1:16 pm

    Hey IP – good to see you’re back on form. I was interested to see the line Tane put up in the comments section was also run by TVNZ (right down to naming Don Brash). I guess you’ve found that a little upsetting, eh?

    Oh and while you’re busy being outraged how about you pop over to KB and express your outrage that DPF lied to you about his spend. I would but unfortunately I got banned last time I questioned his questionable accounts.
27. Insolent Prick 27

    20 December 2007 at 1:40 pm

    It’s sexist of you to see it as a put-down, Tane.

    I have always assumed you are a woman, because like your Labour Party, you are the only person who sticks doggedly to the party line at any cost, in the hope you can ride out the storm. It’s safe to say that the only people with any mana or standing in the Labour Party are women. You know, like Helen Clark, Annette King, Lianne Dalziel, Sue Moron, Darien Fenton, Heather Simpson, and Judith Tizard.

    I would have thought you would be proud to associate yourself with such distinguished women, Tane. Why would you want to hang around such shameful characters as Trevor Mallard, David Benson-Pope, Rick Barker, Pete Hodgson, Mark Burton, and Taito Phillip Field?

    You should be proud to be a Labour Party woman, Tane. If you aren’t one already, you should make a change.
28. Tane 28

    20 December 2007 at 1:44 pm

    Prick, piss off. You’re out of line and you’re not impressing anyone.
29. Robinsod 29

    20 December 2007 at 1:45 pm

    Now IP, given your personal history I’d’ve though you’d want to stay clear of discussing women.
30. Matthew Pilott 30

    20 December 2007 at 2:29 pm

    Hmm Prick, Tane never said it (calling him ‘she’) was a put-down. As they say, assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups…

    Pretty sexist to assume that don’t you think?

    Anyway back to what I said, “Pity the Standard could only manage a preposterous, out-of-all-proportion feigned outrage.”

    Now I don’t represent The Standard, but from what I gather Tane is one of several bloggers who contributes. What he says at kiwiblog does not constitute what you said above.

    The Standard has two posts about the billboards, and they are not feigning outrage, they simply assess the costs involved and the television coverage.

    Now I know you’re starting to think of The Standard as a single monolithic entity called Tane, but it makes you look a tad confused.

    Try and post reasonable comments, you might find that you can have an interesting discussion or two. Of course if that’s not what you’re after, then there’s a “t” word that fits nicely.

    Your choice.
31. Lampie 31

    20 December 2007 at 2:29 pm

    Your right Robinsod, must be when his mother slapped him to stop him from using her for breast feeding last week.

    I think his so called love for women is very evident here

    http://spanblather.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-did-not-know-until-just-this-minute.html
32. outofbed 32

    20 December 2007 at 4:34 pm

    Fucking maoist Green party introducing a fucking undemocratic citizens jury to review the electoral finance system
    bloody communists. String them up, that whats I say
    String them up
33. Rumpole 33

    20 December 2007 at 6:56 pm

    Did Jeffrey Palmer make a contribution to the Labour party?
34. Kimble 34

    20 December 2007 at 7:03 pm

    Thats a good point though, can anyone remember a single pledge?
35. Dean 35

    20 December 2007 at 10:51 pm

    IP said:

    “You should be proud to be a Labour Party woman, Tane. If you aren’t one already, you should make a change.”

    You’re not even funny anymore, IP.
36. burt 36

    20 December 2007 at 11:57 pm

    New Zealanders can look forward to be part of a randomly selected jury…. Yeah under Labour and the politicised public service… Come on guys pull the other one.

    What I like best about this clip is that when Helen Clark says “we live in a country with the most amazing freedoms” she’s not actually telling porkies as at today. Come January 1st she would be a lying bitch… but hey her voters and supporters don’t care about January 1st, they are still working out how to pay for Xmas while the govt builds a surplus. Rock on – govt rich – people poor. NZ – rich pricks are better off under Labour.
37. Wayne 37

    21 December 2007 at 1:12 am

    New Zealanders can look forward to be part of a randomly selected jury.. Yeah under Labour and the politicised public service. Come on guys pull the other one.

    This kind of comment is representative of the kind of hysteria that’s gripped the Kiwiblog Right. Get a grip burt.
38. r0b 38

    21 December 2007 at 9:13 am

    Blurt, you and your kind were ranting nineteen to the dozen about how more citizen’s participation was needed. Now it looks like that’s going to happen you’re ranting about how terrible it will be.

    Hence you have no consistency at all on points of principle. The only constant factor here is you’re ranting.
39. Phil 39

    21 December 2007 at 10:26 am

    r0b,

    Burt is entirely consistent IF the selection is politicised – which would, net result, be LESS citizen participation.

    The optimist in me hopes it will be a fair and unbiased process. The cynic in me thinks it will be “Ministry for the Environment 2.0”
40. ak 40

    21 December 2007 at 11:27 am

    Ah, what a sad day. I had a bit of hope for young burt and his “chumps” and dogged “retrospectively validateds”, but with that “lying bitch” it looks like he’s now an official prospect for the Feminazi Lickspittle gang.
    Such a pity. And of course that budding rudimentary logic has gone down the toilet with him – “NZ – rich pricks are better off under Labour.” Sure burt.
    What a shame.
    If nothing else, think of what you’re doing to your poor family burt.
41. r0b 41

    21 December 2007 at 2:05 pm

    “Burt is entirely consistent IF the selection is politicised – which would, net result, be LESS citizen participation”

    Phil. That doesn’t make sense at any level at all. Are left leaning members of the community not citizens now?

    ak – agreed, Blurt has jumped the shark.
42. Phil 42

    27 December 2007 at 4:31 pm

    No R0b, that’s not my point at all – have another think and get back to me…

    As an illustration to help your understanding; How would you like to be the defendant in a murder trial, where all twelve jurors were white middle-aged male accountants?
43. kkbelle 43

    31 December 2007 at 5:22 pm

    talking about wealthy backers, how about your dear LEADER extending a knighthood equivalent to her tax felon friend Owen Glenn.

    Have you any sort of a handle on hypocrisy?

Links to post

1. Thesproutandthebean: posted on 20 December 2007 at 8:26 pm
2. What’s national cooking up for 2008? at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 14 January 2008 at 12:20 pm
3. They just don’t learn at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 22 January 2008 at 1:38 pm
4. Same old faces, same old tactics at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 23 January 2008 at 2:11 pm
5. John Ansell’s reverse Midas touch at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 17 March 2008 at 2:08 pm
6. Davey gets it wrong again at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 4 April 2008 at 4:01 pm
7. Ramshackle PR fiasco at The Standard 2.02: posted on 23 October 2008 at 1:35 pm
8. Flexible Farrar at The Standard: posted on 29 September 2009 at 12:17 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS